AUDI R6 Posted July 18, 2019 Posted July 18, 2019 String theory is a mathematical model . It hasn't been proven and I guess it will never be . Also it tries to combine general relativity with quantum mechanics which is wrong , due to the nature of quantum mechanics (Quantum mechanics describes the possible outcome of our universe and general relativity describes something which is already a part of our universe) . Well I guess QFT is wrong as well for the same reason but physicists stubbornly dont listen to me .
swansont Posted July 18, 2019 Posted July 18, 2019 1 hour ago, AUDI R6 said: String theory is a mathematical model . It hasn't been proven and I guess it will never be . Also it tries to combine general relativity with quantum mechanics which is wrong , due to the nature of quantum mechanics (Quantum mechanics describes the possible outcome of our universe and general relativity describes something which is already a part of our universe) . Well I guess QFT is wrong as well for the same reason but physicists stubbornly dont listen to me . General relativity is a mathematical model. It hasn't been proven and it will never be. It does have the advantage of experimental confirmation, though. (same goes for QM)
AUDI R6 Posted July 18, 2019 Author Posted July 18, 2019 45 minutes ago, swansont said: General relativity is a mathematical model. It hasn't been proven and it will never be. It does have the advantage of experimental confirmation, though. (same goes for QM) General relativity has been proven experimentally . Quantum mechanics has been proven experimentally . But you cant combine those 2 theories because QM refers to a possible outcome of our universe and GR refers to the real universe .
iNow Posted July 18, 2019 Posted July 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said: General relativity has been proven experimentally . Quantum mechanics has been proven experimentally . Supported, not proven. Reinforced, not proven. Proof is for math. Science is only ever at best provisional and pending potentially better explanations in the future.
AUDI R6 Posted July 18, 2019 Author Posted July 18, 2019 38 minutes ago, iNow said: Supported, not proven. Reinforced, not proven. Proof is for math. Science is only ever at best provisional and pending potentially better explanations in the future. Proof is for math? Ahahahahaha:P . Math is not proof . Science is proof. 11 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said: Proof is for math? Ahahahahaha:P . Math is not proof . Science is proof. Math is the practical use of science. 11 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said: Proof is for math? Ahahahahaha:P . Math is not proof . Science is proof. Math is the practical use of science. But trying to generate science from math is impossible...
Phi for All Posted July 18, 2019 Posted July 18, 2019 17 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said: Proof is for math? Ahahahahaha:P . Math is not proof . Science is proof. Back to school! Philosophy and maths work with proofs. Science works with theory, I know you've heard of it! Theories are supported by evidence, NEVER proven, always improving as new knowledge comes along. Seriously, this is something you really need to get straight, otherwise you'll never understand what's going on in science. You're here to learn like the rest of us, right?
AUDI R6 Posted July 18, 2019 Author Posted July 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, Phi for All said: Back to school! Philosophy and maths work with proofs. Science works with theory, I know you've heard of it! Theories are supported by evidence, NEVER proven, always improving as new knowledge comes along. Seriously, this is something you really need to get straight, otherwise you'll never understand what's going on in science. You're here to learn like the rest of us, right? Philosophy and math work with proof? Ok prove me that 1+1=2 Just now, AUDI R6 said: Philosophy and math work with proof? Ok prove me that 1+1=2 Prove it dont say it is just because it is. 5 minutes ago, Phi for All said: Back to school! Philosophy and maths work with proofs. Science works with theory, I know you've heard of it! Theories are supported by evidence, NEVER proven, always improving as new knowledge comes along. Seriously, this is something you really need to get straight, otherwise you'll never understand what's going on in science. You're here to learn like the rest of us, right? Math and philosophy come from human common sense but science is the truth of the universe. 3 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said: Philosophy and math work with proof? Ok prove me that 1+1=2 Prove it dont say it is just because it is. Math and philosophy come from human common sense but science is the truth of the universe. Math can be wrong , but science can't.
Phi for All Posted July 18, 2019 Posted July 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said: Philosophy and math work with proof? Ok prove me that 1+1=2 I'm neither a philosopher nor a mathematician. I'm focused on learning science (although I wish I had a better understanding of the language of physics). 2 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said: Prove it dont say it is just because it is. I'll take it slow. Science uses theory, based on mathematical models, to describe our best supported explanations for various phenomena. Science doesn't deal with "answers" or "proofs". If we did, we'd stop looking when we thought we "proved" something, or that we finally had the "answer'. Instead, we constantly amass more and more evidence, constantly making our theories stronger and stronger, but we don't regard them as some final answer or proof. Because that would be really dumb. Religion often claims answers or proof, but science needs to remove as much subjectivity as possible in order to be true to its methodology.
AUDI R6 Posted July 18, 2019 Author Posted July 18, 2019 1 minute ago, Phi for All said: I'm neither a philosopher nor a mathematician. I'm focused on learning science (although I wish I had a better understanding of the language of physics). I'll take it slow. Science uses theory, based on mathematical models, to describe our best supported explanations for various phenomena. Science doesn't deal with "answers" or "proofs". If we did, we'd stop looking when we thought we "proved" something, or that we finally had the "answer'. Instead, we constantly amass more and more evidence, constantly making our theories stronger and stronger, but we don't regard them as some final answer or proof. Because that would be really dumb. Religion often claims answers or proof, but science needs to remove as much subjectivity as possible in order to be true to its methodology. Science doesnt need math to exist , but math needs science .
Phi for All Posted July 18, 2019 Posted July 18, 2019 11 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said: Math can be wrong , but science can't. Science has been wrong many times. It's probably the best demonstration of the power of theory over "proof". If we thought we'd "proven" phlogiston, wouldn't we still think it was right? Because science uses theory, evidence showed science was WRONG about that.
AUDI R6 Posted July 18, 2019 Author Posted July 18, 2019 Wait a minute .... We write science from our observations in the nature and from experiments . So science cant be wrong . Math on the other hand are made from human logic . Human logic can be wrong but nature cant.
Phi for All Posted July 18, 2019 Posted July 18, 2019 Just now, AUDI R6 said: Science doesnt need math to exist , but math needs science . I'm guessing you don't do math. I understand, it's a difficult language. It's the language of physics. All of theory is just verbally describing mathematical models. You have it backwards.
AUDI R6 Posted July 18, 2019 Author Posted July 18, 2019 Math is not the language of physics . There is no language of physics . We use them for practical applications . But you cant derive something general from something special . Just now, AUDI R6 said: Math is not the language of physics . There is no language of physics . We use them for practical applications . But you cant derive something general from something special . You cant expect math to describe physics .
Strange Posted July 18, 2019 Posted July 18, 2019 1 hour ago, AUDI R6 said: General relativity has been proven experimentally . Quantum mechanics has been proven experimentally . But you cant combine those 2 theories because QM refers to a possible outcome of our universe and GR refers to the real universe . No, they haven’t been disproved. Which is an important difference. We know they are both consistent with all the evidence we have so far, but there is always the possibility that new evidence will be found. It is very unlikely that either will be disproved but they could be shown to have limited applicability/ accuracy. This is a relevant article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/07/13/ask-ethan-what-does-truth-mean-to-a-scientist/amp/
AUDI R6 Posted July 18, 2019 Author Posted July 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, Strange said: No, they haven’t been disproved. Which is an important difference. We know they are both consistent with all the evidence we have so far, but there is always the possibility that new evidence will be found. It is very unlikely that either will be disproved but they could be shown to have limited applicability/ accuracy. This is a relevant article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/07/13/ask-ethan-what-does-truth-mean-to-a-scientist/amp/ Both have been confirmed a billion times.....
Strange Posted July 18, 2019 Posted July 18, 2019 20 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said: Philosophy and math work with proof? Ok prove me that 1+1=2 One standard approach uses set theory to define integers in terms of axioms and then derive their properties (including addition). I can try and find a reference for you later. 23 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said: Math can be wrong , but science can't. A mathematical proof is always true (unless there is an error). Science is often (always?) wrong ... to some extent. The phlogiston theory was completely disproved with more evidence. (Ditto the steady state universe) Newton’s law of gravity was found to be wrong in certain cases. And so on...
AUDI R6 Posted July 18, 2019 Author Posted July 18, 2019 Just now, Strange said: One standard approach uses set theory to define integers in terms of axioms and then derive their properties (including addition). I can try and find a reference for you later. A mathematical proof is always true (unless there is an error). Science is often (always?) wrong ... to some extent. The phlogiston theory was completely disproved with more evidence. (Ditto the steady state universe) Newton’s law of gravity was found to be wrong in certain cases. And so on... Math come from human logic and human logic may be false . Science cant be wrong because it describes the reality of the universe.
Strange Posted July 18, 2019 Posted July 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said: Both have been confirmed a billion times..... Doesn’t mean they always will be. (See also “black swans”) On the other hand, a mathematical proof only needs to be done once. And then it is true for all time. Just now, AUDI R6 said: Science cant be wrong because it describes the reality of the universe. Our descriptions can be (and often are) wrong. 11 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said: Math is not the language of physics . It is impossible to do physics without using math to describe it. 12 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said: But you cant derive something general from something special . Math often does this.
AUDI R6 Posted July 18, 2019 Author Posted July 18, 2019 Human logic can be wrong but the reality of the universe cant be wrong . In order to see if we are correct , we need to encounter another civilization similar to ours to see if they can understand our logic . And still there is no guarantee we are correct.
swansont Posted July 18, 2019 Posted July 18, 2019 1 hour ago, AUDI R6 said: But trying to generate science from math is impossible... Where do you think relativity came from? The stork?
iNow Posted July 18, 2019 Posted July 18, 2019 1 hour ago, AUDI R6 said: Ahahahahaha Strong counter argument. You've clearly convinced me of the error of my position. So you're aware... Merely repeating an invalid claim without adding any new information doesn't magically render it correct. Repetition of false claims doesn't somehow make them true.
Strange Posted July 18, 2019 Posted July 18, 2019 10 minutes ago, AUDI R6 said: Human logic can be wrong but the reality of the universe cant be wrong . Not sure you know what “logic” means. It is a branch of mathematics and so can be proved to be correct. On the other hand, our observations of reality are never perfect and always incomplete. As a result, our scientific theories are often wrong or incomplete.
AUDI R6 Posted July 18, 2019 Author Posted July 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, swansont said: Where do you think relativity came from? The stork? experiments which proved that electromagnetics propagated at the speed of light for every frame of reference. 2 minutes ago, Strange said: Not sure you know what “logic” means. It is a branch of mathematics and so can be proved to be correct. On the other hand, our observations of reality are never perfect and always incomplete. As a result, our scientific theories are often wrong or incomplete. Logic is what seems right to a human.
swansont Posted July 18, 2019 Posted July 18, 2019 1 minute ago, AUDI R6 said: experiments which proved that electromagnetics propagated at the speed of light for every frame of reference. Experiments? (please cite them) Or the fact that Maxwells equations worked that way? i.e. the math said so. And what experiments showed time dilation and/or length contraction, that were performed before 1905?
AUDI R6 Posted July 18, 2019 Author Posted July 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, swansont said: Experiments? (please cite them) Or the fact that Maxwells equations worked that way? i.e. the math said so. And what experiments showed time dilation and/or length contraction, that were performed before 1905? Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is the same for all observers . But this seemed impossible to that era. Just now, AUDI R6 said: Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is the same for all observers . But this seemed impossible to that era. Einstein then thought that if time was passing slower for observers moving at a relative velocity , the issue would be solved . 1 minute ago, AUDI R6 said: Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is the same for all observers . But this seemed impossible to that era. Einstein then thought that if time was passing slower for observers moving at a relative velocity , the issue would be solved . Einstein didnt use any math to do the thought I mentioned above . This is science . Not the mathematical models we learn at school. Or for example the theory of Pauling for electronegativity . He just pubished a mathematical version of its theory later to become applicable and to be used in predictions.
Recommended Posts